Is Religion Biologically Hardwired?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- Join our Patreon community!: / religionforbreakfast
One-time donations here!: www.paypal.me/religionforbrea...
Religion is a social thing. It involves beliefs and practices passed on from generation to generation as an integral part of culture. But is there a biological default to religion hardwired in the brain of homo sapiens?
For religious studies book recommendations, see: amazon.com/shop/religionforbr...
Follow me on:
Twitter @andrewmarkhenry
religionforbreakfast
Bibliography:
Science on Religion: www.patheos.com/blogs/science...
Patrican and Burris, “Am I the Stone? Overattribution of Agency and Religious Orientation,” Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2012, Vol 4, No. 4, 312-323.
Harris and Fiske: sites.duke.edu/flaubertsbrain...
Steven Mithen, "Prehistory of the Mind," 2002.
Justin Barrett, Cognitive Science Religion and Theology: From Human Minds to Divine Minds, Templeton Press, 2011.
Marc Andersen:
www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.b...
“Learned Faith: The influence of evolved cultural learning mechanisms on belief in Gods. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 7(4), 327-335.
Lanman, J. A., & Buhrmester, M. D. (2017). Religious actions speak louder than words: Exposure to credibility-enhancing
displays predicts theism. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 7(1), 3-16.
Willard, A. K., & Cingl, L. (2017). Testing theories of secularization and religious belief in the Czech Republic and
Slovakia. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(5), 604-615.
Jonathan Lanman, “On The Nature and Future of Agency Detection and Religion,” Religion Brain and Behavior, 2018.
Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, 2001
H.A.D.DOUKEN
Morpheus Seashellsbytheseashorepheus
Does the HADD hypothesis explains why making unfalsifiable claims on random things being secretly connected by a higher power is sometimes called religion and sometimes called evolutionary psychology ?
I appreciate the video. Nicely done. Although I'm not seeing the problem. There's biological capability and cultural reinforcement (confirmation) ... gene-meme interaction. A feed-back loop.
I have flow diagrams if anyone is interested. ;)
Re -lig - ion
Reg- ion
Leg - ion
Re- volut - ion
In-vent- ion
Where ;and when ; WAS this ..Ion ?
Why were the upper portions of the heavens called , “ ion - o- sphere”
Does it declare , “ Io - no - sphere “ !
Was it the place of Sion ; or Zion ?
To go.
Off-plane port?
Consider Indus Valley
Indus -tree
A volute is a spiraling compressing configuration.
There; was solut
involut , etc.
HERE was a portal to another plane.
ruclips.net/video/g8rx_SDeaao/видео.html
Look at ancient egypt. It seems very interesting the shift from animal gods to human gods. It seems that human based gods emerges when complex urban society develops. Extrapolated, it could be that humans in urban settings naturally just assume the most dangerous thing around them is not an animal predator, but another human.
Is there a time in ancient Egyptian religion in which we can see a "shift" in such gods? From my understanding, animal Egyptian gods not always depicted or seen as animals, they are also represented as humans sometimes. And what about those non-urban societies that depict their gods as human-like or those that lack an anthropomorphic body at all?
@Wednesday's Child the Egyptian gods are very distinct from the other pantheons that you mentioned, and the similarities between the rest of them can be explained because they are all descended from proto Indo European religious practices.
Osiris and his sister (Isis) were not anthropomorphized animals nor their parents Geb and Nut and these are some of the earliest Gods in the pantheon so it would be hard to put a time line on a transition period. Early paleoliths in Egypt show basic animal headed concepts most likely arising from the shamantic practice of "inhabiting" a sacred animals "power" through the use of a head dress made of a skull and other elements. The Egyptians are often referred to as a bronze age people with a stone age soul because they did not forget these ways when they urbanized
@Wednesday's Child Any hypothesis about the belief systems of the people of Gobekli Tepe are just unverifiable assumptions
@Wednesday's Child Egypt had language that has been deciphered and plenty of physical artifacts. Though too often Egyptology is more interpretive art history than archaeology id say there is a bit more to work with.
Plot twist: there WAS a spirit haunting Darwin's umbrella
No, he didn't train his dog properly so it barked at anything.
Is video seems question begging
It was the spirits of all the turtles he eated
@@narrelleweir6383 Pretty sure that was just a joke, my guy.
The vsauce of religion right here. Even kinda sounds like him.
He doesn't enunciate like an idiot tho
He should edit his videos and scripts the same way :D
lemme guess, his name is Gabriel. Brother of Michael?
www.thevolumesoftruth.com/Above_Reproach
Thus says The Lord to His servant: My son, why do you question Me in this way? To question My servant is to question Me. Therefore listen and have understanding, that My will may be fulfilled in you.
That which you call the Old Testament was indeed written through My servants and prophets of old, and all who were wise gave heed, obeying the writing thereof. Yet even then that which would come to be written in the New Testament already existed, awaiting the day I would send out My apostles and prophets to proclaim the Good News. Was it the Old Testament? No. It was the New Testament, never before seen, heard or published.
And now the time has come for Me to send out My apostles and prophets once again, to announce My coming and to set all these crooked paths straight; behold, it is time to blow the Trumpet and prepare My way before Me.
Does that which My messengers proclaim agree with the Bible? Yes. For the words in these Letters are My words; as are the words in your Bible My words, though they have been greatly misinterpreted and mistranslated by men. Therefore put no difference between them. For to reject any part of My Word is to reject the whole. I tell you the truth, the three books are one, one on-going testament to My glory.
Thus much of what My servants proclaim, you have already heard. Yet they will also declare that which you have not heard (nor have you understood, because of man’s doctrine in you). Therefore, again I say to you, what My prophets of the end of this age write is indeed new to many, yet remains in perfect agreement with the prophets of old. For I do not change; I shall surely make My plans known.
@@toddyahushua7972 Cool story, bro.
"It was only the wind. You've been hadd!"
Must've been the wind.... For King and Country!!!
Then took an arrow in the knee
Why I read this in Johnatan Frakes voice?
From a believer's perspective HADD fits with the idea that there is intentionality on the part of God to be known by us. "You have made us for yourself o God and our hearts are restless until they rest in You" (Augustine)
I like that. Might be the basis for a cognitive theology of some sort. Seminary dissertation topic?
This sounds a little bit similar to the idea of Sensus Divinitatis by John Calvin and used by Alvin Plantinga. Here are two links some video clips about this, that might interest you. ruclips.net/video/lro05RvPMkE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/lro05RvPMkE/видео.html
The muslims believe that God wanted to be known and this is the reason to create human beings.
Everything can fit with God. That’s the reason it’s not a good theory. “You can’t explain that!” always becomes “Of course God did it like that!” once we do. And that can be done for any unexplained thing, really.
@wearealltubes" I have not created the Jinn and Mankind, except to worship me " Then, there is a hadith qudsi that goes something like " I was a hidden Treasure I desired to be recognized so I created the creature" .
: کنت کنزاً مخفیاً فأحببت أن أعرف فخلقت الخلق لکی أعرف.
Just what I have read. Sufism has used it a lot in their texts.
This is a great channel, and very underrated. I've always been interested in religion and I'm glad there is someone who makes such high quality videos on these subjects.
Never have I wanted to subscribe and like a RUclips channel more than I have yours. I know you are also an academic with all of the demands that come with it (lectures, classes, research, publication, dissertation students), but you are doing good work here. Bringing religious literacy to the table is essential for us to claw our way out of this mess. Please continue! And at an alarming rate!
i love how you updated your avatar with a beard
YOU ARE SO UNDERRATED TO THE POINT WHERE I FEEL BAD
Oh! This was very interested! I myself have no actual knowledge in regards to the cognitive sciences inspired religious studies field, this has been very fun to watch.
I don't think Durkheim can really account for religion either, though. Religion is not just a communal experience; in some ways it is deeply individual. Durkheim certainly explains much of how organised religion and religious communities develop, but he doesn't have any way to account for religious Inspiration, which often flies directly in the face of organised religion. The basic intuitions that often guide religion do seem to have something more than a purely social origin.
If he's correct, that explains inspiration as a simple epiphany. Your imaginary friend gave you really good advice, in other words. It's a moving experience to hear the ultimate knowledge from the ultimate boss of the universe, and you just happen to be his best friend.
👏
@@haywardjeblomey6505 But Durkheim doesn't really have any way of accounting for epiphany, that's the problem. Structuralism can only account for what we do with epiphany (viz. interpreting it within a religious framework). It's reductive to suggest that religion comes about as the result of social interaction and the creation of community when there are clear counterexamples. I'd posit that it's actually more hylomorphic, with both upward and downward causality.
@@Salsmachev You don't know where epiphany comes from? It comes from memory (experience) and the processing of those memories through other emotional states. One can never come to the correct conclusion if they don't have the experience of knowing the proposition, for example.
@@haywardjeblomey6505 I don't think we actually have any substantive disagreement here. Epiphanies, according to your explanation of them, are not consistent with a wholly structuralist/Durkheimian account of religion.
An excellent video as always! I love how you're able to explain things in an understandable way for the general public without sacrificing the complexity of these topics. Usually people on youtube focus just on one side of the argument, but you always give an explanation of both sides, even in such a short video. I really appreciate all the work you do!
As an atheist who tried a catholic prayer practice, I have this hunch that there is utility in relating to the chaos of the world in an anthropomorphized manner. It felt strangely natural and it kind of made it easier to pay attention to subtle "responses of the world" to your own actions.
I think that's such an interesting overlap between pareidolia and confirmation bias, because it only appears once you prime yourself to look for these communications. You see a similar pattern with the concepts of synchronicity and manifestation.
*+ReligionForBreakfast* A point of criticism about 8:48-9:10
Yes, obviously..cultural learning mechanisms are VERY important in shaping the content and place where religious form. That's not the claim of HADD either (i.e. it doesn't claim to describe how it happens, just suggests that HADD is at the forefront for the entire process, it allows it 'to go'). That's not a real argument against what HADD. That counter argument to HADD is, I think, akin to saying:
"the shape, slope, and surrounding features of the land (like reefs, rocks, islands, etc.), the trajectory of the ocean currents, and the force and direction of the wind are the factors that determine what the waves will look like, what direction they go, the height they will have and other things. Therefore we can brush away the moon and tidal currents as contributing to the explanation of the movements of seas and oceans."
I think it's missing the point entirely. I see it as HADD opening the door for personal/chance interpretations and other larger social forces (both in the moment and over looong stretches of time) to either discount/explain away or run with those HADD experiences.
We certainly don't know how it all works, and I think focussing too much on those neuro-studies is going to be a red herring. We might see where it starts to happen, but locking people up in an ƒMRI for the entirely of belief-forming that can take quite long it's going to be practical. And to some extent, even if/when those devices become tiny and portable, you can only see where it happens - that doesn't necessarily tell you (why or) how it happens _like_ that.
Granted to all of that.
But the reason I'm excited about the progress happening with the neuroscience of religion (not just *adoption* but continued *adherence* to beliefs) is that once we know the exact mechanism and process by which a person chooses emotional satisfaction from sticking with happy memories vs embracing the new and unknown based on objective evidence, then we can explore how to shape experiences scientifically so that people can be incentivized to think rationally. Taken to the next level, we could develop a cure for irrationality!
Loved this video! Could you do a video on the history of marriage in religion? I read an article for my sociology class that claims for the first 500-1000 years of Christianity the religion rejected the concept as "tainted and secular," and didn't adopt it as sacrament until 1215. I don't know if there is any truth to this, but I thought you might have some knowledge on the subject. Thanks!
I love this theory because I'm a simultaneously spiritual and highly analytical person.
You will love Dr Jordan Peterson's videos
What does it mean, that you are spiritual?
@@cristobalrojas3712 yea, if you want to fall down a reactionary rabbit hole
how is it possible?
@@wendbnew u have a connection with the unseeable forces
People who have never had a paranormal experience cannot fathom what it's like to have one. I can tell you from years of experiences that these phenomena exist. I consider myself an educated person, a pretty rational one at that (and, no, I do NOT do drugs). My encounters with the paranormal on numerous occasions rocked me to the core, and made me realise that whatever I was denying existed is not only real but quite earth-shattering. My whole outlook on this subject has completely turned my world upside down.
What did you experience exactly if I may ask, and how did you come into the conclusion that it’s paranormal?
Check the wires in your house
Brilliant! This is a deep and useful subject for all of our species. Excellent job, I would love to see videos with further research
This channel is a real gem!
I also wonder how this theory might relate to the tendency for young children to invent "invisible friends" or pretend that their stuffed animals and dolls have personality and are talking to them and the children talk to these inanimate objects? Basically, belief in invisible supernatural beings (spirits, ghosts, gods, angels, demons...) is an extension of the tendency of young children to have "invisible friends". Freud's theory holds that this is exactly what is going on: belief in a god is an "infantile neurosis" - adults acting like children, being attached to God as an invisible friend. So, question of cause and effect: is the idea of God merely an extension of the childhood tendency to invent imaginary friends? Or do chidren "invent" these imaginary friends because the mind of a child actually is more open to perceiving the real existence of these invisible beings? Might it be that religious skeptics lose this childlike innocence due to an overly logical mind?
Honestly I think I can actually invent an invisible friend if I like. I also already tend to have conversations with my self.
Great channel, definitely deserves more subscribers.
Here are my views on what you said. I agree with you that HADD isn't the end of the story but it definitely is an important part. I think HADD + Abstract Thinking, together with some other social facts (like social identity) can easily explain how religions can develop.
I've heard of this one before
I liked your retelling of the lesson
I also liked your personal touch, as you mention your own persuasion that Religion is a social construct.
Good to enter the dirt and stake your own claim!
We live in a model of the outside universe we build in our minds, like a mini-matrix. Of course we see personality. We're seeing our own egos.
This is awesome!!!
Thanks so much for exploring religion in the mind as well as in the brain.
I hope you'll find a way to BRIDGE the social and hard sciences to show where in the brain and in the genes our loyalty to community, rituals, etc. play out.
Eg., amygdala and DRD4 gene.
Love that you are back doing videos again! Could you please cover the Genetic Fallacy??(Morality defined by genetic adaptation)
Great work! It shows you enjoy what your doing.
Love the deviation into neurotheology! Hope to see more :)
Btw how’s the Shinto videos coming along?
I find that psychologists and other scientists often overlook aspects of culture which are integral to understanding things like religion. This is why it's important for people discussing these theories to be deeply grounded in religious studies and history more generally. I'm glad you pointed to that in this video
Psychology isn't the science that has traditionally accounted for culture and religion. In fact, clinical psych has had to find ways of accommodating things like cultural norms in a fairly ad hoc manner in more recent decades.
But in practice, a good clinical psychologist will handle those issues well as part of cultural competency.
That said, the psychology of religion is a valuable research area into itself which I personally feel is ripe for some major new research developments.
Well done, well put, and well, just really interesting. Thank you.
Thank you. This is a topic I’ve long considered and wondered about. I have my own theories that are too long to express, but it’s good to learn about other people’s concepts.
A fine video! Excellent introduction to the concept.
Amazing stuff!
Please keep exploring neuroscience and cognitive psychology as it connects with religion. This is exciting!
The big question that arises here is: where in the brain are "Cultural leaning mechanisms" happening?
Also, agency detection might explain *adoption* of religious beliefs, but what about *maintaining* religious beliefs and doubling down when presented with conflicting evidence? How do the social sciences explore adherence and submission to group think? In neuro, it's all about the power of the amygdala.....
Thanks again!
I’ve had this question for a while so it’s cool to see it being discussed
In my experience, everyone I've ever come across always seem to a 'religious' connection towards something, whether it's in a God, something material, or something else, despite them being religious or not.
Animals has HADD too, but I don't think they are religious. But we differ from other animals that we have a much deeper understanding of the future and the past, so we can ask ourselfs "What hapens after we died?" etc. Then we make up answers which becomes a part of our culture.
That and the ability to communicate abstract concepts, which I think is the major criterion for culture. AFAIK only orcas can do this outside humans, and the scientific literature describes them as having cultures.
Love you and your channel. Sounds to me that cultural forces amplify the inherent individual HADD neurophysiological tendencies. Greetings from Ireland. ❤️👍🏻👌☘️🇮🇪
Gosh we've come a long way since Gordon Childs. Thanks for the upload.
Maybe as humans moved into settlements in the Neolithic, those cultural methods slowly changed from fear of predators to storytelling which was passed down over the millennia. Pantheons usually reflect the social status of society. So if you have a hunter-gatherer tribe of a couple dozen people, spiritualism might make sense; likewise, if you have a budding empire from a city-state with a king, it makes sense that the gods would have particular identities with control and hierarchy. This would also explain the slow formalization and stratification seen in religions and the usage of kings to represent themselves as divine as they likened themselves to gods.
Great topic and I really appreciate it.
I live in New Orleans and Practice Voodou, I'm looking forward to your videos about the Orisha and Lwa at some future point.
As a curious coincidence (Or maybe not), the analogy of the ghost being the coats' rack is very similar to a Buddhist one. This one is about being in a house without light and seeing a snake on the floor. But you take a candle and see it was just a rope. The analogy is to illustrate that nothing in Samsara can hurt us and hence we are just mistaking a rope with a snake. I am a Buddhist, but i do have to say that if we try to apply this from a secular-practical point of view then it's not only useless, but kinda dangerous. I find that funny.
Are you still Buddhist
I can't find the original source, but I recall seeing an article that said that organized religions tend to form when the population of a group exceeds one million people. This would seem to fit with the social aspect proposed here.
I mean the first organised religions that we have evidence for came about in cities with populations between ten and twenty thousand, so a million seems rather too high a number
Spinoza had a similar theory about organized religion as being caused by improper identification of final causality in natural phenomena. Although Spinoza never implied that judging natural events as having finality is part of some natural human cognitive behavior, he sees it as a vice that ultimately leads to moral servitude.
Hypothesis: Religion began as a recursive psychosocial phenomena starting with HADD in a small group of humans, but continued into cultural learning mechanisms when these humans taught other humans, like their children, which evoked HADD and informed how later humans experience and understand it.
Transferred or was connected from threat detection to anthropomorphizing via placation behavior- leaving or offering a predator meat to avoid becoming its prey. This relationship influences the CLMs of the society, and is anthropomorphized as rational behavior on the part of the predator since it appears to be following a social construct like trade. This again enters the CLMs and the idea of placating or bargaining with other HADD instances not so directly attributed to predators begins to manifest in the psychological conditioning of the society.
I'm just gonna put this out there I swear my cat is plotting against me but then again I might just be anthropomorphising her actions :P
You are wrong. She is gatamorphing YOUR actions. She beleives that you are thinking and reasoning.
Your cat is plotting against you.
Nah, cats are evil. You're not paranoid, she is out to get you 😂
haha.
The beard is coming in quite nicely
I know this isn't the point of your videos but I HADD to say it.
I'm not very religious but the Lord's prayer helps me calm down when my anxiety is at its worse. It is very interesting how that is hard wired into my inner self. Probably has something to do with me learning it as a child and me finding comfort in it now that I'm older. Either way I'm glad it works when I need it the most.
i love that for u
Same here!
That’s like with me and the Shema.
Great channel!
These actually sound like 2 different things. Like when people do stuff together in a community with a sense of belonging. That would be interesting to study biologically because it can happen even in the absence of belief in the supernatural.
I was just listening to Daniel Kahneman cite the theory of biologically wired religion tendencies in Thinking, Fast and Slow last week. Thanks for giving this idea some more context!
Psychology and Religion - two areas which need to mix more.
Alicia Tur How so?
I believe the paintings and other depictions of human/animal beings made by early humans are better explained by trance states, dreams, etc. And I agree with your friend: religion is a complex issue and I believe complex issues have complex origins. Both biological and cultural influences must play a part in it. On a personal note, I anthropologize my computer, and he definitively has a mind of his own. I talk to him often, shout at him and shake my fist at it, but he still does his own thing. Maybe a nice offering would change the tide in my favor? Here's a thought!
There is also a hardwired tendency to discern faces in a jumble of visual features, or even static. It causes us to see patterns, even though we know there is no face and no organization actually present. Look at a cloud, haven't you ever seen a bunny rabbit?
This evolved in the same way as the HADD you mentioned, and is further enhanced by social pressures to see and understand expressions. The "face" of the Man in the Moon is a perfect example, and the Moon was often regarded as a god in early societies. So, there is the mechanism needed to go from fearing sneaky tigers and ghosts to fearing capricious gods.
None of this, however, can disprove the notion that a God actually does exist, and has created a finely tuned Cosmos, designed to evolve intelligent life with religious tendencies.
Actually I first learned the legend of the rabbit on the Moon and for a long time I never saw "the man on the Moon", I used to see a rabbit. The first time I saw a human face on the moon was after a documentary talking about that when I was already an adult.
Now about what you mentioned, I think the HADD is a very poor explanation for the development of beliefs, it could be a factor, but I see things like introspection/meditation and philosophy as something essential for religions, not just giving random names and faces (and that's in addition to the part about social norms already described on the video).
Of course it cannot disprove an unfalsifiable God concept like the one you describe. There is no way to observe a universe and intelligently determine that it isn’t fit for intelligent life, so that isn’t surprising at all for that to be the case.
As always happens, we come up with an explanation for the huge influence religion has besides it not being true, but it still doesn’t matter, because there is always something we cannot explain, isn’t there?
I have been trying to find a way to say this without people feeling like I am attacking their beliefs. This is very clear. Thank you.
Yeah, I know how you feel. One way to say it diplomatically would be to compare it to love. Loving someone has a neuro-chemical basis too baked into our brain from evolution. But that fact doesn’t negate the meaning and importance in loving someone. Same goes with religion.
@@ReligionForBreakfast it doesnt even negate the existance of objective love or an objective divine/God or anything really.
As someone in the comment section noted, religious beliefs being hardwired inside us coincides with '' intentionality on the part of God to be known by us.''
Fascinating, thank you!
There's substantial scientific evidence that how religious or spiritual someone or a group is largely boils down to genetics.
Of course culture and upbringing influences what particular religion you tend to believe in, but whether or not a person is religious/spiritual at all mainly comes do to genetics.
It's good to know about this theory, because it makes sense in a way, even though doesn't hold much water... Creates a really great discussion!
I wouldn't say it "doesn't hold water" he even quotes a colleague "it is important for the history of religion [...]". I'd rather say it explains the origin of the tendencies (a framework of sort) that "are made use of" later during cultural interactions to conceive of gods we traditionally find in religions.
Excellent job and man, you did this 3 years ago... The temporal and amygdala; it sounds like identifying (agency) to mediate a fear, gain control, as you summed up in the beginning. The ability for agency I think is a value free judgement. I mean, would our neurology be particular whether you imagine someone behind a tree or a god in the sky? Great examination... Thank you
ALways thought that the need to believe in the afterlife as a way to cope with death anxiety in recently self-aware primitive humas and common practices like talking to the dead after they´ve passed were the "why" and the "how" at the bassis of the formation of early religious rituals and beliefs and the first deities. This video is more about the pre-dispositions that enabled those practices and the creation of deities that would explain forces of nature and random uccurrences. So interesting.
I think HADD explains the physical basis for religion pretty well, it's a mechanism that became useful for society building reasons and made it more likely that people believe in certain flavours (like personalised gods rather than generic power)
I always understood that idea as an explanation of how belief in the supernatural got started, NOT as an explanation of why we have world religions. At best, how we got beliefs in the first gods. Everything after that is clearly a social (and sometimes even intentional) phenomenon, that may get bolstered by the original thing, but involves much more (especially childhood indoctrination).
Though I have to say, arguing that religious people are more likely to make this misattribution is a counter-argument seems to me a bit absurd, as that is exactly what I would expect to see if the theory is correct. People more likely to commit this misattribution would thereby more likely to assume they had found support for their religion, thus making it more likely for them to commit to their religion. Now I wouldn't expect a huge difference there, but that's certainly the result I'd expect.
I am so glad I happened across this channel! Great information and great presentation!
Also, pareidolia and our ability to have imaginary conversations with others( often times arguments we have in the shower) definitely add to the picture.
Great video. I always follow every video you make. What microphone model you are using? Thx for your answer
So it could be H.A.D.D + Abstract Thinking + Correlation.
I think you missed the bit of social influences.
@@daddyleon I think social influences have become important over time. However, they didn't seem too important in the first religions. For example, the Mesopotamians pretty much thought of themselves made to be the slaves of the gods while the Ancient Egyptian temples were mainly just for the priests. Commoners rarely went to temples. It wasn't like a place of worship of today. On the other hand, it's definitely not just HADD because humans believed objects like the Sun were gods. Sure, the Sun moves around in the sky. However, you aren't going to get a glimpse of the Sun out of the corner of your eye and think it was a person. I think the answer is closer to a little girl talking to a doll like its a real person or even having an imaginary friend. However, I really don't think the social aspect played that large of a role.
@@lukeeckstein3498 Sorry, I don't understand, could try and explain how the Mesopotamian/Egyptian societies didn't influence their citizens while their societies were very different and the people within the societies did share quite some beliefs - ifaik, at least.
@@daddyleon Oh boy, I'm not saying that societies didn't influence their citizens. They certainly did. I'm just saying there wasn't as much of a communal aspect to the religions of the past like there is today. For example, people today might go to church or a bible study. This may give the appearance that communal activity is important in religion. Which it may be today, but not in the past. In ancient Egypt you didn't get people going to the temple every week.
@@lukeeckstein3498 Sorry I still really don't understand. Perhaps it's because I'm not a native speaker? You mean societies that build pyramids and ziggurats weren't really into communal religion? Sure, now we have bible studies, madrassas, etc. But that doesn't mean that society, the 'priestly class', and the zeitgeist explanations for HADD didn't have a major influence.
I just realize watching this video that Creepy Pasta is the "modern" way in which we (humans) are interpreting the Ghosts, Monsters, Demons & Gods.
Alejandro Guerra Villegas Using Ockham’s razor it’s absurdly unlikely to think every single person who has seen a ghost was mistaken.
It is assumed to be impossible, then other often unlikely explanations are looked for.
@@apersonlikeanyother6895 I'm not saying that Creepy Pasta is a lie, I'm saying it's the modern equivalent to manuscripts from Old Age.
i think... both of these theories make an amount of sense, but i don’t think either is the full story. life is hard. i think religion arose because it gave ancient people a way to understand and try to control the chaotic, mysterious, and often dangerous world around them, and because it gave solace and a sense of purpose in times of tragedy. it filled (and still fills) a need, and society and the human brain empowered it.
Great video, 1 disagreement. The theory isn’t really designed to explain how religion works, it only hypothesises towards why religions begin to develop and why there is a notion of the supernatural in human cultures. Expecting the theory to also explain why religion socially operates as it does is like expecting evolution to account for the movement of the planets, then saying evolution has flaws cause it can’t account for elliptical orbits.
Shalom, Aure!
This is such a Materialist & Empiricist Viewpoint
This was fascinating, and it is clear that religion can be mostly explained as a social construct.
However, it would be interesting to study some of the cross-cultural similarities in religion. Are they also just byproducts of how we interact socially or are there some inherent individual aspects of ourselves which universally influence and exacerbate the development of religion on a personal level?
I think that to anthropomorphize natural phenomena was their scientific approach to stuff. e.g. Violence is like tiger, must beware of tiger, must beware of tiger in people (violence in people). Tiger as a 'god' would be actually a way of thinking of "a natural principle not binded by tiger..". I think the spiritual is a model for similarities between observable phenomena.
A second step towards religion/mysticism would be: e.g. there is a tiger person (violence) principle around there. It is not bound by an object, by people or animal. It can manifest when you least expect (a tree falling over someone and killing). Let's friggin respect 'tiger person' (let's beware of violence)
Excellent insights! Thanks!
My question now, is where do these impulses / needs / decisions take place within the brain!
I want to see a timeline of which areas are stimulated in which order, to get an understanding of the true difference between the believer and the skeptic.
I like your job. Really.
Cool vid thanks
I think reducing religion to just names and faces is an error, so HADD is a very poor explanation. Not just because the social aspect explained in the video but also because philosophy and meditation(praying is considered one form of meditation) are important parts of any religion and cannot be explained by HADD (if anybody thinks praying is just asking the gods for favors, that totally misses the point).
I think HADD may have contributed to giving faces to the and personalities to the deities or other mythological creatures, but that's just like the facade of religions, not the essence.
I don't think it matters that HADD doesn't explain religious philosophy because philosophy is a different activity that often doesn't have anything to do with religion. It makes perfect sense that, once religion came into being, it became a topic of discussion by philosophers (just like everything else), and that some philosophers integrated religion into their philosophy since it was so important to them or tried to use philosophy to justify their religion.
However, I think you are right that HADD doesn't explain where meditative practices come from. They seem to be central aspects of pretty much every religion, so a good theory of where religion comes from should explain them as well. There is most likely no single psychological or sociological cause that can explain why religion exists - it comes from a combination of factors.
Praying is considered meditation to those that never receive answers...
I was about to make a bad joke, but i H.A.D.D homework to do
😂😂😂
Well made!
Pattern recognition ability is what helps us do science. But it also makes us incorrectly recognize patterns which don’t even exist.
I ~ H.A.D.D. always enjoyed your videos -- but these new animations are a real plus!! I really mean it!
I’d love to hear more about these type of theories in a series/ miniseries
Thank you your video(s). I think you should look also into sociality theory, which is a much more elegant way of understanding the concepts of supernatural beings. Basically human brain is hardwired to interact with other brains which are not directly accesible (one cannot mindread). So even in very basic and common interactions in everyday life humans are constantly looking for agency, applying intentions and believes to others. This is not a huge step to understand how this process is applied to the world around us. Dialogue is also to consider and Esther Goody for instance claims that the religious practice of prayers is a dialogue. of course for such mechanism to work in a social group, culture (as you mention in your video) is fundamental and channel to way we believe and act "religiously".
"Savages" was not racist in Darwin's time. It just meant humans who lived in the wild.
It held undertones of imperialism as well as racial and cultural superiority - he was less racist than most for his day but he was a product of his time and, as such, used the language and concepts of his time. It doesn't make him a bad person, just like our subconscious acceptance of our societies' norms doesn't necessarily make us bad though our culture will outgrow them as we understand them better.
I'm not an expert on 19th century terminology but was it not the case that the term "Savages" had negative connotations? In his time it definitely wasn't seen as "racist" since the negativity that we associate with such thinking hadn't gained as much traction as it does now. Looking back at the usage of this terminology, it's pretty clear that it was used in many racist contexts.
@@azn3000 There was at least one very popular book glorifying savages (forgot the title). Yes they thought that they needed they souls to be saved, but many admired that lifestyle.
@@attentatdefecitdisorder4348 I didn't say he was not racist, just that the term "savage" was not pejorative.
@@betepolitique4810 I'm saying that it was. It absolutely was. Not as much, or in the same way, but it definitely was.
Edit: The French use of the term had fewer negative connotations, this might be the source of confusion.
Thank you for exploring this topic. I found that some of the rebuttles a bit lacking, although I am no expert. Saying that some espect of life is a sociological construct (i.e. religion) misses the fact the a society is made out of people who all have similar neurological pathways. So if a tendency to think in a similar way is prevelant across a population, culture will arise. Also, saying that a person's views is shaped by his upbringing is just moving the issue one generation backwards - Someone still had to come up with the idea, using their brain, and the idea had to make sense to the people around that person, inside their own brains. Not to mention that a decendent will have similar genes, and so similar neurological pathways, to their parents, and therefor be similarly suspicious to the same types of thoughts (I'm not saying that, for example, Christianity itself is hardwired, but religiosity maybe is).
Many people have HADD these experiences.
Hello sir. Please make a video on why our ancestors pray or pay tribute to some unknown powers they felt that are above them.. Thanks 😊
Until I saw your video displayed on the main screen, I never realized that the brain and the mushroom cloud have very similar shapes.
This is a very interesting analysis of the phenomenon, but I think in addition to mentioning the influence of people around us, there is an important factor not to forget and it's the way young people in many conservative religious societies having their minds "programmed" to record and register religious formulas and apply them robotically at a very early age. These young people, develop that religious robotic attitude all throughout their life and it becomes as something difficult to get detached from. But indeed some will succeed to do so. I read an article once about how professionals in scientific fields could still have religious reflexes and beliefs in religious societies that contrast and contradict their rational daily work and expertise. It seems as if the emotional side of the brain was trained at an early age to register and defend emotional formulas independently from the rational side? The way religious people act and defend emotionally their faith feels to me more like when someone is blindly in love. The difference is that its a long consistent state of being in love? Could it be that this is more responsible for the perseverance of religious beliefs than the interesting and reasonable mentioned factors?
time stamp 7:45-8:00: Problem of cause and effect: which came first?
(sorry for all the multiple comments. This one really got me thinking!)
So, I understand that this video is a bit dated, but it just showed up on my feed after I discovered your channel. So, first of all, really interesting discussion. I have some thoughts about this, actually. If there was an "original religion," wouldn't it have interpreted all observable phenomena as the distributed actions of a single monistic universal agency? I always thought that this is the reason for all of the world's various sacrifice/replenish cosmologies (e.g. that which is common in Hinduism, Mesoamerica and other regions). Secondly, I would argue that global religions/cosmologies really started to change after the advent of farming. One of the most interesting things that I think resulted in a kind of ontological change, concurrent with a practical change, is the emergence of a kind of materialism that would have followed agriculture. If we were to posit that paleolithic hunter-gatherer societies followed a similar sacrifice/replenish cosmology as many modern and ancient societies (which one could interpret as an extension of human exchange models to the cosmos), the decision to suddenly take something and make it "mine" could indicate a significant departure from the previous ideology. That is, that this previous integral part of the world cosmos is now suddenly an object that "I" can control and whose reproductive cycles I can manipulate to my own benefit. However, in order for such a manipulation to be possible, Neolithic populations have to understand the rules and the mechanics of it all. This would result in a kind of "medical gaze" that anatomizes objects that would have been previously associated with mysticism. Similar concurrent developments also point to this direction, such as the development of pottery, which shows an understanding of clay mineralogy and the types of temperatures needed to produce pottery with adequate thermal properties. All of these changes are in full force by the Chalcolithic, where we even start seeing metallurgy and other pyrotechnically transformative crafts. This, to me, signals the emergence of increased analytical thinking about natural objects, which may represent a significant departure from previous notions about the same objects. Moreover, as these objects are given a new social life as chipped, molded and pyrotechnically transformed objects, new objects may not even remotely resemble the original raw materials in terms of ontology. For a comparison, in modern English, we use the word "chicken" to refer to both the farm animal and the meat that we purchase in the store, but we have become so far removed from the production process that we often do not regard these two things as being even remotely similar.
So, basically, I do agree with your thesis that religion is socially constructed (as are all worldviews), but I would further this by stating that it also relates specifically to the ways that people engage with their surroundings and the social role that specific aspects of our environments take as we interpret them. I suppose that in this way, it creates a kind of feedback loop between perceptions by members of a group and the social structures that interpret and make sense of these perceptions.
This reminds me of Theo Jansen, a kind of contemporary Da Vinci, who makes wind powered walking machines out of pvc pipe structures. The randomness of the wind creates the illusion that those machines have agency, that they walk or stop on their own will, it's easy to adopt the utterly irrational idea that they're living beings.
I honestly cannot see how both theories couldn't be complementary: HADD as a primitive cause, and culture learning mechanisms as a group response.
TLDW: "God is a jumpscare."
... that ♪♪♪loooves♪♪♪ you!
Trouble with your counter to this theory is it suffers from sample bias. You are more likely to believe what people around you believe because that belief is more common in that area, by definition…
Most likely is a combination of these things
It seems to me that neurology explains the very basic origin of superstitiousness or magical thinking while social and cultural studies explain it's more advanced evolution that applies better to modern humans. I don't think these theories exclude but complete each other. Also I noticed that the reason people choose to remain superstitious is often fear or arrogance or both. Humans fear unknown so they prefer made up answers to uncertainty. Humans are arrogant enough to think that everything revolves around them: good and bad vibrations, gods, karma which all fit human morality and point of view. They don't want to acknkwledge their true place in the universe and its real nature out of simple weakness.
I think pareidolia also helped our ancestors to see what is not there. pareidolia works in all of us, all the time. I would like to know your thoughts. Love your videos, congrats
2:40 - There actually is the major downside of just loss of potential energy (your senses & co-ordination device - i.e. your brain, are power hungry). Then you also just have the lack of ability to think of other things. Think of novellists or engineers, etc. going for a walk in the woods to clear their heads or just walk & think. I can easily imagine the probably thousands of times someone has wanted to/just gone to walk in the woods to think through something, from couplings & children & marriages (forced or proposed) to how can I plant my crops better.
2:45 Specifically, "jumpy, superstitious" hominids survived more often than "rational, atheist" hominids.
8:02 Meld superstition with a social creature that has a brain with a *lot* of interconnections and religion is one of the things that emerge?
this explains conspiracy theories too. whether there is a hardwired tendency to assemble cognitive perceptions into complex structures (early Chomsky), this is how language is learned - and religion is encoded in language. as we are increasingly isolated from actual natural threats, the mind wanders....